On Ref. 1, Seattle says build the tunnel

McGinn: 'Public said move ahead...and that's what we're going to do'

BY SCOTT GUTIERREZ, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Updated
10:31 pm PDT, Tuesday, August 16, 2011

From left, State Senator Scott White, Seattle City Councilmembers Sally Bagshaw, Tim Burgess, Richard Conlin, Tom Rasmussen, Port Comissioner Gael Tarleton and City Councilmember Nick Licata react to the first release of election results at the Let's Move Forward election night party on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at Pier 57 on the Seattle waterfront. Initial results showed public support to continue with the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel.

From left, State Senator Scott White, Seattle City Councilmembers Sally Bagshaw, Tim Burgess, Richard Conlin, Tom Rasmussen, Port Comissioner Gael Tarleton and City Councilmember Nick Licata react to the first release of election results at the Let's Move Forward election night party on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at Pier 57 on the Seattle waterfront. Initial results showed public support to continue with the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel.

Seattle voters Tuesday overwhelmingly endorsed the state's plan to build a tunnel in place of the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

In early returns, voters were approving Referendum 1 on a city-statement agreement related to construction of the planned $1.9 billion deep-bore tunnel replacement by a margin of almost 60 to 40 percent.

The vote had no legal bearing on the state's mega-project, but it gave Seattle taxpayers a voice -- something that Mayor Mike McGinn has called for since running for office in 2009. The results, however, are not what McGinn hoped for.

McGinn and environmental groups have advocated a surface-transit concept that would have been less expensive but put money into street and transit improvements instead of building a new highway. State officials say they have no interest in revisiting the tunnel decision.

In a terse statement issued late Tuesday, McGinn said: "I worked to give the public a direct vote on the tunnel. The public said move ahead with the tunnel, and that's what we're going to do."

Tuesday's vote took place just prior to completion of the tunnel's environmental review - a final hurdle to the project. Once the project gets a federal record of decision -- expected this month -- the state Transportation Department can authorize its contractor to start final design and construction.

Referendum 1 had to do with a small section in a series of agreements between the state and the City Council regarding construction of the deep-bore tunnel.

The City Council approved the agreements 8-1 over McGinn's veto. Not giving up, tunnel opponents collected enough signatures -- 28,929 in a month -- to force a public vote. The city sued, and a judge ruled that only a narrow portion, known as "Section 6," could be subject to referendum. Section 6 dictates how the City Council can give a final thumbs-up to the state on proceeding with final design and construction once the tunnel project's environmental review is complete.

If voters had rejected the referendum, the City Council would have had to pass another ordinance. A subsequent ordinance would be subject to Mayor McGinn's veto and another possible referendum.

"This positive result will give the City Council the ability to quickly move through and confirm the agreements and not to have lose any time, which would have cost us money," state Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond said.

"So we're feeling really good about tonight's vote and citizen support for the tunnel."

It's unknown whether voters approved the referendum because they generally support the project or they're tired of talking about it. Polls showed voters divided on whether to build a tunnel, new viaduct or surface option. The pro-tunnel campaign's prevailing message was that after 10 years, it was time to end the debate.

The pro-tunnel Let's Move Forward coalition -- backed by business, labor and downtown interests -- raised more than $400,000 in campaign contributions, about four times what the Protect Seattle Now campaign did.

State lawmakers chose the tunnel option in 2009 after nearly a decade of debating how to replace the viaduct, which carries 110,000 vehicles per day but is vulnerable to earthquakes.

But there are many elements to the project that remain controversial. For one, it will be tolled, possibly as high as $4 to $5 one-way. The state needs toll money to pay for construction, but tolls are predict to flush nearly half of the viaduct's current traffic onto city streets. The state's own studies predict downtown congestion with tolls would be worse than just knocking down the viaduct and improving the street grid.

Also, a clause remains in state law that says Seattle taxpayers would be on the hook for cost overruns. Gov. Chris Gregoire and Attorney General Rob McKenna said the clause is unenforceable without further action from the Legislature.

McKenna, who is running for governor, and his Democratic opponent, Congressman Jay Inslee, say they would not support forcing Seattle to cover cost overruns if the project goes over budget.

The first chunk of the viaduct is slated to come down in Sodo this October. Construction on the tunnel -- the largest yet to be built in the world -- is slated for completion in 2016.

"The City Council is committed to protecting the City's best interests, undertaking the next critical steps in contracting with the State to advance the bored tunnel program," council President Richard Conlin said in a statement. "The Council wants to thank our stakeholders, neighbors, regional partners, and City of Seattle staff for their continued efforts moving this project forward."